THE VINE APRIL 6, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Earlier this year, while doing this piece on John McCain's environmental record, I talked briefly with his policy guru, Doug Holtz-Eakin, who noted that McCain's approach to climate policy would be more "conservative" than Clinton's or Obama's, insofar as he'd push for a cap-and-trade bill but not a whole lot more besides. I figured this was worth hashing out further, especially in light of this recent interview that Holtz-Eakin did with E&E, where he emphasized the point.
In a nutshell, McCain's camp argues that all you basically need to do to cut carbon emissions drastically is to put a price on carbon—by, say, setting an economy-wide limit on greenhouse gases and then allowing companies to buy and sell pollution credits. Once you do that, the market will figure out how to meet the new CO2 targets on its own, and the government doesn't need to "help" by passing stuff like fuel-economy standards, or efficiency codes for buildings, or what have you. (Holtz-Eakin added that there wasn't a "bright line" here and McCain wasn't opposed to all regulations, but agreed that there was a basic philosophical difference.)
Anyway, that argument sounds fairly sensible, but there are a couple of decent objections to it. Obama's energy adviser, Jason Grumet, has pointed out that if all you have is a cap-and-trade bill, and you wanted to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050, say, the price of carbon would have to be set at something like $150/ton—which could wreak a fair bit of economic havoc. A more reasonable price might be something like $40/ton, but that probably wouldn't be enough to induce major changes in, say, the transportation or agricultural sectors, so you'd need to couple a cap-and-trade with CAFE standards, land-use policies, funding for public transit, and so forth.
Another piece of this is that, as the New York Times explores today, a number of experts are questioning whether the technology even exists (or will exist in the near-future) to allow industries to make the necessary emissions cuts in short order. So there's a very good case to be made that the government should be pushing policies to spur alternative energy sources (whether that's funding R&D, or mandating that utilities get a certain amount of their energy from renewables, or what have you). McCain mostly shies away from that, save for nuclear power. Now, I realize there are lots of nuclear fans out there, but it's worth noting that even a major nuclear renaissance in the United States—say, a staggering 200 new plants by mid-century—would still only provide for a fraction of energy use in the country. So it certainly can't be the only solution for weaning the country off fossil fuels.
Anyway, there are other differences between McCain and the two Dems on climate policy (the debate over auctioning off pollution credits in a cap-and-trade system is the biggest one), but this is one big one. It'd be nice to think that these distinctions will come out and get debated in the general-election campaign, rather than the press just assuming that both candidates basically have similar views, but who knows...
--Bradford Plumer
7 comments
I cannot believe the energy and environment blog is "powered" by British Petroleum. Why don't you create a human rights blog sponsored by nike while you're at it. So much for independent journalism. This is right up there with the Saudis buying our middle eastern studies departments. Honestly I'm just looking forward to the day our elected officials have to wear brand names on their suits like nascar cars. At least then our leaders/media would be honest about being completely full of shit.
- Maxblum13
April 7, 2008 at 12:47am
I think it's proper to be skeptical (why have an explicit sponsor for anything on the site?), but let's give it a chance. BP buys plenty of ad space in the print magazine but no one's complained about that yet.
- cleavet
April 7, 2008 at 9:35am
The thing is, there are simple things that can be done that would steadily reduce carbon output now without requiring fancy new technology. For example, what about a tax credit given when people upgrade to a car that gets 20% better gas milage than their trade-in. If you replace a 15 MPG car with an 18 MPG car, you save more gas than if you replace a 50 MPG car with a 100 MPG car (assuming equal driving distances). Run the yearly gas consumption numbers for each car driving 15000 miles per year and see what I mean.
I suggested this to Obama's campaign but haven't heard back yet. ;)
- cleavet
April 7, 2008 at 9:46am
McCain's environmental policy proposal for carbon-cap n' trade represents a short view of most of the Right's way of thinking about the environment as just a single item on a check list and a way of thinking that is very much set on maintaining the status quo for American business.
The environmental impact of global warming is/will be big in how it has impacts on not just humans but pretty much every species on the planet and their relationship to the environment. Addressing global warming isn't about just reducing car emissions or power plant emissions its also about reducing total negative impact on the planet while maintaining a reasonable quality of life for everything. Doing nothing which is pretty much what McCain proposes will be far more expensive than actually putting into place measures that while costing money upfront will in the end save more.
Energy sources across the board are not going down - whether its oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, or hydro. Take into account the cost and environmental impacts of repairing the damages done by extraction industries, with Federal subsidies and tax breaks, and the fact that tax payers are stuck with the clean up bill of capping abandoned wells, safeguarding aquifer and groundwater sources, stabilizing and abating mining tailings, species migration route and breeding ground disruptions, degraded air, water, and noise quality in rural and urban points of energy distribution, impacts on communities, do people honestly think that cap and trade will solve these issues?
Republicans and free-marketers will argue that we've made big strides in the US since the 78 Love Canal disaster but keep in mind it took until 1995 to get a paultry $125 million dollar settlement. While the US has gotten better at cleaning up the messes we make, we've got lobbying by industries to continue to loosen or not even enforce EPA, ESA, or OSHA requirements and regs. With the increased policing of environmental standards we've had a 20% increase in population by 2000.
A comprehensive environmental policy that addresses inefficiencies across the board with tax credits to low and middle income families and homeowners to upgrade antiquated and old appliances, building stock upgrades to bring them up to current energy code standards, improved car efficiencies and a strong Federal backing of renewable energy development at the national grid scale for electrical production with wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and even nuclear to get us off of the coal and oil trains.
Obama has at least laid out a broad but comprehensive environmental proposal but it goes beyond simply giving credits to buy a new car...we should encourage smarter ways to incorporate mass transit with flex busing, bicycle lanes, etc. to get folks out of their cars for day to day commutes to work. The American suburban lifestyle is on the verge of obsolescence because of its inefficiencies, costs, and increasingly degraded quality of life.
But we also need to challenge Americans to become the world leader in green and sustainable technology design, manufacturing and implementation. As it is, with McCain's Do Little Approach to Global Warming and the Environment, America is in the process of losing not only the environmental benefits of the low hanging fruit solutions we can do but also the financial benefits to that low hanging fruit and the high fruits that will ensure a longer future of America at the forefront of science, technology and sustainability.
- singlespeed
April 7, 2008 at 11:11am
buying advertising space in the print magazine that is clearly BP's message is not the same as allowing BP to buy the actual magazine's message. It's apples and oranges.
- Maxblum13
April 7, 2008 at 4:15pm
A simple tax on CO2 at about $25 per ton will provide the carbon based fuel industries (coal, oil and natural gas) with the incentive it needs to commercialize CO2 capture technologies at a fraction of the proposed cost for the government to subsidize renewable fuels.
If the objective is radical reduction of CO2 emissions, a tax making it more economic to capture than emit is the way to go. A recent study showed that CO2 capture at a coal burning power plant would cost the consumer about 2-3 cents per kilowatt hour. This will probably translate into about 15 cents per gallon of transportation fuel when applied to liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. There is no good reason to subsidize alternate or renewable fuels to make them competitive if the same CO2 result can happen with a proper CO2 tax. And it would happen sooner.
Renewables like biodiesel and corn based ethanol require massive subsidies to be competitive and now the facts are finally emerging about how harmful they are.
Other alternate sources should come in only when they are developed to the point that they can compete economically. Which will occur later on in this century when all fossil fuels are clearly in decline.
- r-ennis
April 7, 2008 at 10:32pm
Boosting the energy efficiency of the economy is, as we keep hearing , the magical unicorn to end all
- Anonymous
October 22, 2008 at 1:40pm